The US Supreme Court holds that reverse-payment patent settlements should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis)

But Decision Raises as Many Questions as it Answers The Supreme Court yesterday held that it may be unlawful under the antitrust laws for a brand-name drug manufacturer to resolve patent litigation against an allegedly infringing generic drug maker by paying the generic to forestall market entry. Pharmaceutical companies might have legitimate, procompetitive reasons for agreeing to such “reverse-payment settlements,” but as Justice Breyer writes for five of the Court's justices, “the relevant antitrust question is: What are those reasons?” The Court suggests a few possible answers, but otherwise leaves litigants and district courts to navigate an undefined “rule of reason” framework on their own. In so doing, the majority stresses that litigating the strength of the patent (i.e., its

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteurs

Citation

Richard G. Parker, Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Jonathan Sallet, Stephen McIntyre, The US Supreme Court holds that reverse-payment patent settlements should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis), 17 juin 2013, e-Competitions June 2013, Art. N° 52995

Visites 358

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues